Even in that case, whole of Punjab, Bengal and Assam going to form a big Muslim countries seems quite doubt full. The Sikhs, the Punjabi and Bengali Hindus, Assamese and Northeast tribesmen like Nagas and Khasis wouldn't have embraced a Islamic theocratic state so easily.

Even in that case, whole of Punjab, Bengal and Assam going to form a big Muslim countries seems quite doubt full. The Sikhs, the Punjabi and Bengali Hindus, Assamese and Northeast tribesmen like Nagas and Khasis wouldn't have embraced a Islamic theocratic state so easily.

Hindus had always been united, even the Aryan and Dravidian theories failed to make any dent, Hindus had always India/Bharat as a historical civilization and historical identity, the ethnic identity and national identity always coexisted. That's why even Goa assimilated so well into India despite centuries of Portuguese rule. Since, Pakistan was an invented identity(Rahmat Ali when he was studying in England), there was surely people who would be in doubt about ethnic vs country. India never faced a problem with assimilation of Sindhi or East Bengali Hindus as the part of India, but in Pakistan the assimilation of Muhajirs is questioned to this day, they are mocked as "Hindustani" (Indians aka the enemy) until to this day by other Pakistanis.

The 1940s Lahore resolution talked about numerous Muslim majority independent state, this was a unilateral decision, how would all other religious groups would let Assam, entire Bengal and Punjab becoming a part of a Islamic theocratic states condemned to live as a second class citizens.

Even in that case, whole of Punjab, Bengal and Assam going to form a big Muslim countries seems quite doubt full. The Sikhs, the Punjabi and Bengali Hindus, Assamese and Northeast tribesmen like Nagas and Khasis wouldn't have embraced a Islamic theocratic state so easily.

Then why do they speak language of the Muhajirs aka Urdu aka dilect of Hindustani aka their enemy?
They neglected their rich linguistic heritage(which is one of the main problem of Pakistan) for a 'foreign' language.
But then they also borrowed religion of the Arabs.
Appropriated ancestors of Turks, Arabs and Central Asian(who actually plundered their land). Totally rejected(and hated) their Hindu-Buddhist history and heritage.
Can we call them a country?

Pakistan was an artificial construct. Urdu was selected as the national language so as to create a common bond, a first step in converting the ethnic mosaic of Pakistan into a nation-state. Selecting any existing language would have created bias over other ethnicities. Jinnah was a pretty shrewd fellow, had he lived a few more years history of the subcontinent would have been very different in a positive way.

Unionist Party was going to rule Punjab as an independent country? Those who were so against the partition that it took full scale riot to break its back? And about the United Bengal, you expect Bengali Hindus to succumb to another of Suhrawardy's schemes in '47?

Unionist Party was going to rule Punjab as an independent country? Those who were so against the partition that it took full scale riot to break its back? And about the United Bengal, you expect Bengali Hindus to succumb to another of Suhrawardy's schemes in '47?

Throughout history many people have harboured such dreams and many still do. However that's a different thing.

Thing is, if there were no partition then that means Hindu and Muslim populations are more evenly distributed as it were pre '47. If we take into consideration a weakened Muslim League then it invariably means a stronger Congress with a good deal of hold in places like Sindh, Balochistan, East Bengal etc. It would have been somewhat similar to how India was during, say the first Janata Dal Government. Also in this case the only thing that has prevented Pakistan from becoming an effective democracy till now would not have been prominent, i.e. Punjabi Fascism. So there is absolutely no reason to believe that an undivided Indian would have broken apart when the one in real life haven't.

Throughout history many people have harboured such dreams and many still do. However that's a different thing.

Thing is, if there were no partition then that means Hindu and Muslim populations are more evenly distributed as it were pre '47. If we take into consideration a weakened Muslim League then it invariably means a stronger Congress with a good deal of hold in places like Sindh, Balochistan, East Bengal etc. It would have been somewhat similar to how India was during, say the first Janata Dal Government. Also in this case the only thing that has prevented Pakistan from becoming an effective democracy till now would not have been prominent, i.e. Punjabi Fascism. So there is absolutely no reason to believe that an undivided Indian would have broken apart when the one in real life haven't.

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.